As I'm sure for most regular readers and those who aren't, the act of reading a book is a large part of the enjoyment. Relaxing in bed, on the couch with your feet up, as it rains outside and you're warm inside, you feeling cool in an air conditioned living room on a blazing summer day and just being engrossed in a book. The smell of the book and the sound of the pages being turned can almost be ritualistic.
That being said, the primary act of reading is to enjoy the story. People often complain about not having the time to read when I mention a good book. So a little back story, I had brain surgery 5 years ago and while the results were good I've been left with vision and neck problems (parinauds syndrome and double vision) which makes reading more of a chore than a pleasure. So I turned to audiobooks, I've read over 60 books that I've kept track of (possibly more) on Audible and old school CD based books; books that even with perfect vision and no neck pain I'd never have read. It works great for me, I can 'read' while cooking, cleaning or enjoy it like a normal book and lay back in bed or on the couch, close my eyes and engross myself.
However whenever I tell people this I often find myself defending it when they say I cheat, as if reading is some competition and you only get credit if you physically read the pages.
Yes I can and do use my condition as an excuse but I shouldn't have to defend myself because I read my books in a different way.
Reading should be shared, great stories should be shared, no matter how it was consumed.
TL;DR Audiobooks are good for everyone and isn't cheating, it doesn't change the journey the author takes you on.
The problem I see with audio is that it defines a lot of stuff that one can play around with when reading rather than hearing. Such as pace, tone, etc.
Also I think that it might be easier to lose focus that way . and it might make it harder to quickly compare and go back, ponder a sentence etc.
I have no idea how people would think an audiobook is 'cheating' because listening is 3 or 4 times slower than reading.
It's fine, it's just not reading it's listening. It's more passive like watching TV than active like reading a book.
Reading is a richer experience. When you listen to an audio is the other the one who chooses, for example, the pace. You also lose the incredible perk of reading a beautifully worded paragraph again and see how the letters melt together to form that incredible sound in your head.
Audio books are okay for medium and low tier literature, but I'm not going to listen Shakespeare. That's disgusting.
>>7623572
this
>>7623572
>I'm not going to listen to Shakespeare
>I'm not going to listen to a work that was meant to be performed
ok...
>>7623622
You wrote that. You really did.
>>7623511
I get why people listen to audiobooks on their commute and when they work out, I listen to non-fic ones when I clean and cook.
But its not reading. You did not read 60 books on audible, and you never read a book on tape either. Listing them as books you have read is lying to yourself.
>>7623572
>Audio books are okay for medium and low tier literature, but I'm not going to listen Shakespeare. That's disgusting.
This has got to be bait.
The recent audiobook of "JR" by William Gaddis is a monumental achievement.
>>7623648
Agreed.
With audiobooks you can experience a plot, but can you really fully digest a novel if you blow through it without being able to slow down at an important passages and dissect their meaning? Just last night I got to the Grand Inquisitor chapter of the Brothers Karamazov, and I read it slowly and multiple times in order to grasp as much as possible. This can't be done when you're listening to audio. Sure, you can rewind and relisten, but do people actually do that? You can't highlight nor annotate, so in that way you miss out on an important aspect of novels - applying oneself to the writing.
If I just want to consume the story then an audiobook is ok, if I just want the basics, a flyover. Or if I know the prose is average at best (I'm looking at you, SK, esp.). Teaching Company or other nonfic is also good. But reading wonderful prose is a whole different thing.
>>7623572
>Shakespeare
10/10
>>7623572
this is master satire
I don't even mind that he's satirizing my own opinion, he did it so well
I like audio books. I'm not gonna lie. All you fags can't deny. That sounds immersive. I don't need no fucking cursive. I've heard them playing, to hell with annotating. I like them big and loud. I'll play them for a crowd. I just can't help myself. I'll listen at home. I want them real thick and juicy. But I gotta be straight when I say I wanna, audio's got it goin on. A lot of chavs won't like this shit. Cause them punks lie and quit. But I'd rather stay and play. Cause I'm long and I'm strong. And I'm down to get the diction on. Even /lit/ boys got to shout. Baby got tape.
>>7623511
who actually gives a shit
read what you want, listen to a reading of it
i assume some of the audiobooks are narrated by prestigious actors who can do dramatic readings
i assume it's like audio-only theatre
overall who gives a fuck what people on the internet think
Audiobooks are awesome, because they allow you to consume literature at times when you would not otherwise be able to. Audiobooks are at their best in the gym or while driving, cycling, etc. Just pick a title that's not too complicated (as you cannot go back and reread sentences) and you are in for a whole world of enjoyment.
>>7623787
Felt the same way.
Audiobooks are good for some books. A confederacy of dunces was an incredible audiobook. Shakespeare would probably perform excellently in that medium too. But a lot of books are simply meant to be read.
Also:
https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/42k19o/the_stigma_of_listening_to_audiobooks_as_somehow/
>MOM!!! HE DID IT AGAIN
>>7623511
>That being said, the primary act of reading is to enjoy the story.
wew lad
https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/42k19o/the_stigma_of_listening_to_audiobooks_as_somehow/
why, OP?
>>7623511
Listening to The Martian on Audible (so highly recommended, I could go into a 3 page review right here) kept me awake and lucid on a 3 hour solo drive to Big Bear. I'm notoriously bad at driving sleepy, but the book was so gripping that I had more than enough energy to stay safe. I can't recommend audio books enough for those that struggle with getting drowsy while driving, regardless of how rested you are
>>7624444
>>7623511
OP all of these are audiobooks(pic related)
If you are no longer NEET, have a shit of responsibilities whe you come home from work, and you have the need to read, Audiobooks are a great compromise.
Don't listen to these fags on lit, half of them admit they don't even read, be it digital, paper or audio.
https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/42k19o/the_stigma_of_listening_to_audiobooks_as_somehow/
>>7624474
I'm not corny enough to care about website rivalries. r/books is garbage but r/literaure isn't bad
>>7624444
funny you mention, that audiobook kept me occupied on a recent 2 hour solo drive. The Martian is a great example of a book I probably would not have read, but gave the audio a chance. I don't think I would have liked it on the page as much as I did read aloud.
>>7624480
So you are the redshit. People that complain about someone being from redshit, without seeing a link, in fact are redshit.
You guys have been spamming this board telling people to go to your website who weren't from there in the first place?
I hope Hiro brings back moot notion of filtering banning the word redshit on sight.
>>7624527
Audiobooks aren't optimal, but they are a fine medium nonetheless. However, I won't listen to great works of literature that need their time to be distilled and analyzed. Non-fiction is really the way to go if you insist on using audiobooks. Have to say that if you do choose audiobooks for your literature, make sure you listen to short books. I personally enjoyed Kafka's Metamorphosis immensely
>>7624527
what the fuck are you rambling about?
>>7624527
I monitor r/bookshelf and r/books because it makes it easier to spot trolls on /lit/
The reason audiobooks got a bad name was because in the cassette era they used to create these horrible "abridged" versions, which is something like a TV or radio adaptation where they cuz down the content and turn it into some shitty Wikipedia version of the text all in the name of keeping it on two 90 minute cassettes or whatever. Back then, you sure as hell could call audiobook pleb, but now that you can keep a dozen 50 hour long unabridged readings on your phone, I find the person who doesn't use audiobooks to just be a luddite and a provincial pleb.
Audiobooks are not the same. You didn't "read" shit. You had someone read to you as you passively listened.
I'm not saying there isn't a time and place for them. They're not the same though
>>7623511
There's absolutely nothing wrong with using an audiobookif you're illiterate.
>>7623511
That being said, the primary act of reading is to enjoy the story.
>>7624471
Is there an unabridged version of the Iliad trans. Fagles audiobook?
I like reading and listening to an audiobook simultaneously.
>>7623511
I feel bad for you. I'm sure you heard this before but really just force reading. at the risk of sounding like a pretentious asshole the act of the abstract symbology creating exploitable headspace through raw artistic description and the technical ties and mind play of the esoterica of manufactured design can truly only be enjoyed on the level of literally reading the shit, audio books are fine if you don't care and just want to know the overall story in its most digestible form or its surface but the act of reading is a bad bitch you should honestly respect and share in the global stigma of audiobooks. All forms of art (written, film, games, photography, painting) is a dimensional cross over, good artists take control of that and fully take advantage of the experience they're crafting for you. Would you watch a playthrough of silent hill 2 instead of playing it? would you have a friend describe clockwork orange instead of watching it?
also stop trying to multi-task you can't dip in to the transgressions of lolita's incurable soul while making scrambled eggs you fucking jack off.
>>7623511
It's better than nothing
>>7623686
>Sure, you can rewind and relisten, but do people actually do that? You can't highlight nor annotate
You absolutely can. The audible app allows you to jump 30 secs back or 30 secs ahead, giving you the opportunity to reread a passage. I like to listen to the audiobook while reading the paperback and I do a whole lot of highlighting and annotating. I simply hit the 30 secs rewind button and highlight the passage, or hit pause and ponder what I just heard/read.
Shit is tight. Narrator is doing half the work for me.
